Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be annoyed with my friend

19 replies

cecinestpasunepipe · 17/09/2011 19:41

She is involved in a court case in which her evidence contradicts that of some other witnesses. I have no opinion regarding who is telling the truth, but she has told me that her evidence should carry more weight because she swore an oath on the Bible, and the other witnesses, "only made an affirmation". When I called her up on this, saying that if I had to appear in court, I would affirm as I have no religious beliefs, she insinuated that meant that I had no way of telling right from wrong.

OP posts:
MangoMonster · 17/09/2011 19:44

I'd be annoyed too, but I don't think there's much point in challenging the religious beliefs of others, so I probably try to let it go. YANBU though.

sloggies · 17/09/2011 19:45

Annoying, I agree.

SinicalSal · 17/09/2011 19:48

say to her in a belittling and patronising way 'Oh dear, X, you are confusing your morals with your metaphysics aren't you'.

Well, don't actually say it, maybe, but YANBU.

TidyDancer · 17/09/2011 19:50

I guess to some people, a rejection of swearing on the Bible could be construed as "I don't want to swear on the Bible because I will not be telling the truth". So that's where I suppose it's coming from.

But YANBU.

Mitmoo · 17/09/2011 19:51

It's not her decision to make, the jury or magistrate or whoever, will believe people based on their credibility not on the oath they took.

ripstheirthroatoutliveupstairs · 17/09/2011 19:52

YANBU. i would be mightily pissed off if my integrity and honesty were called into question because I have no reliigous belief.

catsrus · 17/09/2011 20:00

affirmation came in as a concession to Quakers - who do not swear oaths at all. To swear an oath is to effectively say "THIS time I really will tell the truth" - and admit that sometimes you might lie. Quakers believe that you must always tell the truth in every aspect of your life - so swearing oaths is against Quaker beliefs. This is one huge reason why Quaker companies did so well - those they did business with could trust that agreements would be kept :-) Those who affirm then might possibly have a much higher standard of truth than those who swear on oath :)

Interesting list of Quaker founded companies here - including Sony would you believe!

worraliberty · 17/09/2011 20:03

Worra loada crap considering how many lies have been told in court through the years Lol

SinicalSal · 17/09/2011 20:03

That's interesting about the Quakers

TrillianAstra · 17/09/2011 20:04

If she knows that they are superstitious about bibles Christian then she might have some grounds for her belief that they are more likely than her to be lying.

But YANBU, she is being ridiculous saying that people who are not religious have no way of telling right from wrong.

Andrewofgg · 17/09/2011 20:11

There is a theory that an affirming witness carries more weight (subconsciously) as a person who has thought through the question of what is true and what is not.

Crosshair · 17/09/2011 20:16

yanbu.

WreckaJones · 17/09/2011 20:43

I am pretty anti institutional religion but the more I learn about Quakers the more I like them! There were a few MNers on another thread I was on about religion who had been/are Quakers and their input was fascinating!

OP YANBU. I'd be really pissed off with that insinuation to the point that I'm not sure I could hang out with that person much in the future.

Onemorning · 17/09/2011 21:31

YANBU

I was a juror and made an affirmation instead of swearing on the bible. It would have been dishonest for me to swear on a book that I don't believe in. Personal honesty doesn't rely on a belief system, IMO.

Animol · 17/09/2011 21:47

Many Christians - not just Quakers - choose to affirm rather than swear on the bible because of the bible's own teaching.

EldritchCleavage · 17/09/2011 21:51

The Oaths Act 1978 (I think) makes it clear the court is not allowed to differentiate between witnesses based on whether they swore or affirmed. I.e. in law they are treated as equally valid. Your friend has her own personal belief about this but she is being VU to expect everyone else to share it.

Onemorning · 17/09/2011 22:08

Animol, I didn't know that, I suppose I'd assumed that Christians would automatically swear on the Bible. Why is that?

catsrus · 18/09/2011 07:58

onemorning it's because of a passage in Matthew's gospel (which is the root of the Quaker practice too)

Matthew 5:33-37
New International Version (NIV)
Oaths
33 ?Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ?Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.? 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God?s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ?Yes? or ?No?; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[a]

differentnameforthis · 18/09/2011 10:05

So she feels her truth is the only truth because she has religion? Tell her that LOTS of religious people lie.

Child abusing priests & the subsequent cover up?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page